babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

"..There's been success in ensuring that the civilian population is protected, but we do not want to be in a conflict that is ongoing, and no end date. Mr Dewar noted that Norway has ended its role in the military mission, and argued Canada should do the same, and focus on diplomacy.

He did not argue that all NATO countries should give up the mission however. 'I'm with the generals on this one,' he said., 'There is no military victory to be won.'"

but there might very well be one to lose...

Comments

For the latest "success in ensuring that the civilian population is protected", see Libya thread and the latest 85 civilians including 33 children and 32 women from 12 families, bombed to death by NATO's Canadian BUTCHER BOY in Libya, Gen. Charles Bouchard.

A nice baby step in the right direction. When it stops telling Libyans who their government should be I will believe the NDP gets it. Who does De-war think he is to decide who should be in charge in Libya? All he had to do was say the NDP wants to see a cease fire in place immediately so that Libyans can work out a peaceful way forward. He is still taking sides in an another countries internal dispute.

Quote:

Canada, he said, must focus on a political settlement and ceasefire, including putting forward its position on ways for Col. Gadhafi to leave, and whether a settlement could be negotiated where Col. Gadhafi leaves power but remains in Libya.

Who does De-war think he is to decide who should be in charge in Libya? All he had to do was say the NDP wants to see a cease fire in place immediately so that Libyans can work out a peaceful way forward. He is still taking sides in an another countries internal dispute.

Thousands of people dying in Syria and we do nothing while we drop bombs on women and children in Lybia to "save them from Gaddhafi".

We should not involve our military in any foreign aggression unless another country invades another country and that is certainly not the case here. I don't support the "responsibility to protect". Sounds noble but in reality is a disaster.

Thousands of people dying in Syria and we do nothing while we drop bombs on women and children in Lybia to "save them from Gaddhafi".

Seems to me those numbers are not confirmed and are likely inflated much as the numbers leading up to the bombing of Libya were overcooked for propaganda purposes I have no idea how many people have been killed by the regime there but I doubt if there is much difference between the treatment of dissidents in Syria and dissidents in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is currently occupying that country using armoured cars designed for civilian control built in Canada. But then we can't talk about that because someone might mention that Bahrain is a critical base for NATO armed forces.

The NDP calls for action against repressive governments are based solely on the countries relationship to NATO. They like all social democratic parties in the NATO alliance are just fine with "their" brutal dictators oppressing the people, after all they are our bastards.

Quote:

Bahrain's strategic partnership with the U.S. has intensified since 1991. Bahraini pilots flew strikes in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, and the country was used as a base for military operations in the Gulf. Bahrain provided logistical and basing support to international maritime interdiction efforts to enforce UN sanctions and prevent illegal smuggling of oil from Iraq in the 1990s. Bahrain also provided extensive basing and overflight clearances for a multitude of U.S. aircraft operating in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Bahrain deployed forces in support of coalition operations during both OEF and OIF. Bahrain has delivered humanitarian support and technical training to support the reconstruction of the Iraqi banking sector, and has offered support for each stage of Iraq's political transformation. Bahrain has also cooperated effectively on criminal investigation issues in support of efforts against terrorism; the Bahrain Monetary Agency (which became the Central Bank of Bahrain in September 2006) moved quickly to restrict terrorists' ability to transfer funds through Bahrain's financial system. In October 2006, Bahrain joined the U.S. and 23 other countries in a Proliferation Security Initiative interdiction exercise in the Persian Gulf.

After a few thousand NDP-approved bombing attacks, Dewar is playing the GW Bush "Mission Accomplished" scam with equal credibility.

And like the 1st Iraq war, with its "babies thrown from incubator" propaganda lie, the NDP has played the "Gaddafi's Viagra-fueled rape squads--sex-weapon-of-war" discredited lie to the hilt to justify its murderous pandering to the Harper regime's fawning press.

Now Mr. De-War is pushing the propaganda lines about Syria to justify the next NATO intervention in another countries affairs. Ready Aye Ready is clearly the new foreign policy of the NDP. Whichever country "our" Commander in Chief Obama is dissing this week you can count on Mr. De-War to step up and chime in with a sycophantic chorus.

Nice try but no. I do not believe we should be in Libya at all(except to evacuate cdn citizens and accept fleeing refugees) but I cannot extrapolate that into never getting involved in the world at all, as Frmsldr says. Except through the UN which would, of course, allow for the korean war regardless of civilian casualties and the Iraq war I

Yup we should never have interfered with that Belgium-German issue in 1914 ...

You're being ironic, no? I'm quite sure the relatives and friends, and their descendants, of the 64,944 Canadian soldiers killed and 149,732 wounded are eternally proud, as are we all, of the incredible sacrifice made by those heroes to save the world from, ummm, sorry, what were we talking about?

Apparently the fact that it would have been ok if Hitler had won or the Kaiser (tho that was a far more stupid war that WW2 IMO) as long as no one else got involved. Cuz that worked so well for Stalin wwhen he did it

Yup we should never have interfered with that Belgium-German issue in 1914 or the German Polish situation in 1939

Or Korea 1950-53 or Iraq 1990-91 or Kosovo 1999.

Yup in 1914, Canada was still a colony/part of the British Empire and had no choice or say in the matter. By 1939 Canada was a Dominion and (presumably) had the freedom to make such decisions. In neither case did Germany attack or invade Canada or attack the Canadian military overseas prior to Canada joining those wars.

In the case of the U.S.A., Germany did not invade or attack the U.S. either in WW 1 or 2.

By 1940, attempts to overcome the Great Depression had failed. By then Roosevelt had come to the conclusion that the way out of the Depression was war.

To that end, Roosevelt played a game of chicken with nazi Germany and fascist Japan and the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and merchant marine:

Lend Lease, providing escort for ships carrying supplies to the U.K. First supplies were carried in British merchant ships, then American. American vessels first sailed to the 200 nautical mile U.S. coastal water limit, then to a half-way limit south of Greenland, then all the way to the U.K.

In Asia Pacific, U.S. Navy ships would sail to Singapore and Indonesia and wherever else Imperial Japanese Navy ships were deploying. While Japan was waging war on China, U.S. destroyers and patrol boats were sailing in the Yangtze, Yellow and Pearl rivers, remember the Panay?

The orders were: "Don't initiate combat. If fired upon first, fire back in self-defense."

By these means it was only a matter of time before either Germany or Japan went "too far" and "attacked" American forces oversees or attacked America.

We all know from history that Japan attacked a U.S. overseas military base, Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. As we can also see, Pearl Harbor was an 'inside job' with Uncle Sam doing all he could to force Japan's hand into war against the U.S.A.

In backing up his fellow Axis partner, Hitler did Roosevelt the favor of declaring war against the U.S. Roosevelt got what he wanted, America's entry in World War 2 on both the (Western) European and Asia-Pacific Theaters of war.

Hmm No, what I said was ok is when one of the countries involved in a war asks for the U.N. to assist in negotiating a peaceful settlement (i.e., use peaceful means to end a war.)

What is not ok is when the U.S. and other countries and (sometimes) NATO with or without ISAF to invite themselves through the U.N. rubberstamping as a result of Security Council bullying to pick a side, attack, invade, occupy and wage war on a country or countries and thus use war and violence to further escalate war and violence under the pretext that "war is peace."

We should not involve our military in any foreign aggression unless another country invades another country...

Frmrsldr wrote:

That sends the wrong message:

That it is not the act of a War of Aggression that is wrong

but the actors who are right or wrong, good or bad: those who are waging the War of Aggression.

Such moral relativism doesn't fly.

We are going to achieve peace and end war through (more) war.

Crudely put that is the (unofficial) NATO motto.

That is the reasoning behind R2P/D2P.

knownothing wrote:

Alright I concede, war is never really justified but it does get tempting when Adolf is bombing your house

If you are defending your own house, your own family, your own community and your own country, that is a war of defense.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

It is only when you cross your country's border, cross over the border(s) of (an)other country/countries as Adolf and his Luftwaffe and Wermacht did when they (metaphorically speaking) 'bombed your house': when you are attacking, invading, occupying and waging a War of Aggression on (an)other country/countries, or bombing other peoples' houses; that is when war is morally and legally unacceptable.

Moammar Gadhafi did neither.

He neither attacked U.S., E.U., Canadian or any other countries' homes or military bases or personnel overseas.

Nor did he attack any civilians or civilian populated areas in Libya.

At best he only threatened(?) to do so in one of his rambling, sometimes semi-delusional speeches.

A threat that has since never materialized, though there was plenty of opportunity.

So far, those who have committed the worst atrocities are NATO through its bombing of cities and killing and injuring innocent civilians.

And (some of) the rebel forces who have murdered civilians who were or were suspected of working for the Libyan spy agency, police and/or prisons where torture was involved. There have also been reports of (some) rebels murdering captured government forces troops.

If Canada has ever been involved in a Just War, World War II would be the one.

There is no such thing as a "Just War."

One is only justified in defending oneself.

No one is justified in attacking another.

That is the myth of World War 2 as the "Just War."

Prior to Canada's entry into the war Germany and Italy did not attack or invade Canada nor attack Canada's military overseas.

As Major General Smedley Butler put it, war is a racket. It's all about the arms industry earning a profit.

We have seen above how Roosevelt played his devious 'Game of Chicken' with Nazi German and Imperial Japanese forces in the hopes that either a significant incident between U.S. and German and/or Japanese forces or enough U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine sailors would die over time, so that American public opinion would be swayed in favor of entering the war.

Roosevelt believed that war would end the Great Depression in the U.S.A.

In the end, war came when the 1940 U.S. embargo of strategic resources on Japan forced Japan's hand - which was the intent.

I can see how the Japanese invasion of Malaya, Singapore, Thailand (Siam), Burma and Hong Kong and the subsequent Japanese attacks against the U.K. military and citizens posted or living there would bring the U.K. into a war against Japan, but I don't see how this would bring Canada into war with Japan.

The U.K. declared war on Japan the same day as the U.S. - on December 8, 1941.

Canada declared war on Japan before either the U.S. and the U.K. on December 7 - the day Pearl Harbor was attacked(!)

Seems like Prime Minister William Lyon King was quite the War Party war lover.

He beat U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill when it came to declaring war on Japan.

In December 7 1941, the Imperial Japanese military didn't have any Canadian blood on its hands to justify it either.

Thread drift: unless someone wants to make a specific case for Canada's attacks on Libya as a "just war", their are other threads for general discussions of the idea.

Meanwhile, the phony excuse of NATO/Canada/NDP about "protecting civilians" is revealed as total indifference when it involves our Death-from-the-skies campaign:

Quote:

Amnesty Urges NATO to Investigate Civilian Killings in LibyaNATO Issued Denial on Zlitan Killings, But Did It Investigate?

....Officials reported the attack yesterday and independent journalists confirmed seeing large numbers of dead civilian bodies in the morgue, including a number of civilians. NATO shrugged off the entire report, insisting anyone who was killed must’ve been a “mercenary.”

Although the ineffectual "No" vote to come from the NDP is the right vote, I disagree with the idea that it represents a small positive direction for the NDP.

They stated at the last endorsement vote that it was a one-time extension approval (whether to differentiate themselves in a small way from the Cons and Liberals, or to placate a few NDP MP holdouts, I don't know).

Dewar's recent statements are more a cause for dispair than hope.Here's why:

I recognize it is not politically expedient for a party to say they were "wrong"--particularly with a policy that wantonly slaughters so many in a foreign land.

However, there were politically viable alternatives to Dewar saying now, as he essentially has: "we were right to vote en masse for the Harper bombing campaign" and, "our bombing campaign has been a great success at protecting civilians", "mission accomplished".

For example--If they actually wanted to repudiate the policy which they endorsed--they could say something along the lines of "our extension vote was specifically contingent with the promise in the house that we were there to protect civilians, this trust has been betrayed; there is considerable evidence now that that the bombing campaign has not helped and may have even contributed to further chaos and civilian death".

One must conclude that the NDP, like the Harper government, is on the present neoconservative path of military and imperial adventurism with its eternal fake cover story of "humanitarian interventionism".

This path inevitably leads to Harper's hyper-militarism with a rational for the F-35's and billions diverted from social spending. How can you have a policy of US-led "humanitarian intervention" without the tools to do the job?